DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, it is harsh. But in this particular case, there are pages upon pages of documentation to support my assesment. It may be harsh to say it, but it would be cruel not to.

What those pages you refer to document is your confusion between the symbol of zero and its concept, which is a number, zero.

You cannot multiply a number by a symbol and get a number. And since you can multiply one by zero and get one, zero is a number: if it were just a symbol, then you wouldn't be able to multiply any number by it.

Regarding sets, zero is both the cardinality of the empty set and a possible element of a one-element set. I am talking here about the number zero, not about its symbol: of course you can have a set containing any symbol for zero, but this is not the set I am talking about, neither could such a symbol be the cardinality of the empty set, although the number it represents can. So:

1. The cardinality of the empty set is the number zero, which is then identical to nothing, or to the (nonexistent) elements of that set, so zero (elements) is identical to nothing (no element).

2. The set containing only the number zero (and not its symbol) does not have nothing as its content, so nothing is different from zero.

Again, zero is both different from and identical to nothing.

Now please try to show I am the dumbest person on Earth by falsifying this argument.

2 Replies

@guigus,

A correction (in bold red):

You cannot multiply a number by a symbol and get a number. And since you can multiply one by zero and get zero, zero is a number: if it were just a symbol, then you wouldn't be able to multiply any number by it.

Regarding sets, zero is both the cardinality of the empty set and a possible element of a one-element set. I am talking here about the number zero, not about its symbol: of course you can have a set containing any symbol for zero, but this is not the set I am talking about, neither could such a symbol be the cardinality of the empty set, although the number it represents can. So:

1. The cardinality of the empty set is the number zero, which is then identical to nothing, or to the (nonexistent) elements of that set, so zero (elements) is identical to nothing (no element).

2. The set containing only the number zero (and not its symbol) does not have nothing as its content, so nothing is different from zero.

Again, zero is both different from and identical to nothing.

Now please try to show I am the dumbest person on Earth by falsifying this argument.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

And since you can multiply one by zero and get one, zero is a number

That's just it. You can't multiply by zero and get one. By definition. This is stuff 12 year olds are supposed to know. What the hell is wrong with you?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
And since you can multiply one by zero and get one, zero is a number

That's just it. You can't multiply by zero and get one. By definition. This is stuff 12 year olds are supposed to know. What the hell is wrong with you?

I have already corrected that mistake (it was just a typo). Now please answer to the corrected version just before your post above (http://able2know.org/topic/152965-25#post-4568300).

1 Reply

@guigus,

A typo?
What about the other times you've said that you can get one by multiplying with zero? Typos?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

A typo?
What about the other times you've said that you can get one by multiplying with zero? Typos?

If you didn't notice yet, one consequence of the reasoning I'm already tired of asking you to falsify is that nothing and zero are both the same and not the same. And one of the consequences of that is that zero is the same as any other number -- like in the division of zero by zero -- so you can multiply whatever you want by whatever you want and get whatever you want. But we are not there yet -- far from it -- since you didn't even try to falsify my reasoning, which I will repeat here (please don't try again to discuss my conclusions without addressing my argument):

guigus wrote:

You cannot multiply a number by a symbol and get a number. And since you can multiply one by zero (and get zero), zero is a number: if it were just a symbol, then you wouldn't be able to multiply any number by it.

Regarding sets, zero is both the cardinality of the empty set and a possible element of a one-element set. I am talking here about the number zero, not about its symbol: of course you can have a set containing any symbol for zero, but this is not the set I am talking about, neither could such a symbol be the cardinality of the empty set, although the number it represents can. So:

1. The cardinality of the empty set is the number zero, which is then identical to nothing, or to the (nonexistent) elements of that set, so zero (elements) is identical to nothing (no element).

2. The set containing only the number zero (and not its symbol) does not have nothing as its content, so nothing is different from zero.

Again, zero is both different from and identical to nothing.

Now please try to show I am the dumbest person on Earth by falsifying this argument.

1 Reply

I would really enjoy joining in with this conversation - especially since I started it.

Guigus, Don't judge others because you are in disagreement with them and you won't be judged by the same measure.

Can any of you break this recent drama down into any reasonable excuse for where we are at at this time - So we may progress.

I have no doubt whatsoever that 'Nothing' cannot exist on any level or in any relative or imaginary dimension. Please disprove this.

Thank you and be well!
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

I would really enjoy joining in with this conversation - especially since I started it.

Guigus, Don't judge others because you are in disagreement with them and you won't be judged by the same measure.

I can assure you I will call you an idiot with much less frequency that you have called me so, but I also assure you I will judge you -- I am not a Christian -- and I don't mind if you judge me too (as long as you address my arguments properly, otherwise I will just ignore your judgment).

mark noble wrote:

Can any of you break this recent drama down into any reasonable excuse for where we are at at this time - So we may progress.

I have no doubt whatsoever that 'Nothing' cannot exist on any level or in any relative or imaginary dimension. Please disprove this.

Thank you and be well!
Mark...

Haven't you read my last post (the one that has been ignored for a few pages by now)? It shows precisely the opposite of what you are certain about. Try you to falsify it:

guigus wrote:

You cannot multiply a number by a symbol and get a number. And since you can multiply one by zero (and get zero), zero is a number: if it were just a symbol, then you wouldn't be able to multiply any number by it.

Regarding sets, zero is both the cardinality of the empty set and a possible element of a one-element set. I am talking here about the number zero, not about its symbol: of course you can have a set containing any symbol for zero, but this is not the set I am talking about, neither could such a symbol be the cardinality of the empty set, although the number it represents can. So:

1. The cardinality of the empty set is the number zero, which is then identical to nothing, or to the (nonexistent) elements of that set, so zero (elements) is identical to nothing (no element).

2. The set containing only the number zero (and not its symbol) does not have nothing as its content, so nothing is different from zero.

Again, zero is both different from and identical to nothing.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I have never once referred to you as an idiot! I called you a 'prick'. A prick is not equal to an idiot. Please pay attention.

Now, in order for me to understand your point here I need you to answer a question: Does 'zero' exist?

Thank you.
Mark...

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

You cannot multiply a number by a symbol and get a number

What about π*10=31,4? Symbol multiplied by number to produce a number.

Quote:

The set containing only the number zero (and not its symbol) does not have nothing as its content, so nothing is different from zero

"A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right."

First line of the wiki article on mathematical sets. I take this to mean that a "one-element set" is a contradiction in terms. If the set only contains one object it is not a set, its just an object.

1 Reply

why does mathematics matter here ?

1 Reply

@north,

Because guigus is grasping at straws

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You cannot multiply a number by a symbol and get a number

What about π*10=31,4? Symbol multiplied by number to produce a number.

You cannot multiply the symbol of pi by ten, only the number pi by ten. Or didn't you know that pi is a number?

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
The set containing only the number zero (and not its symbol) does not have nothing as its content, so nothing is different from zero

"A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right."

First line of the wiki article on mathematical sets. I take this to mean that a "one-element set" is a contradiction in terms.

How could you arrive at such a conclusion based on that wiki sentence, only God knows. Perhaps you concluded that a distinct element must be distinct from something else, hence there must be another element. Unfortunately to you, the "distinct" in that sentence just means that a set admits no element repetition.

A one-element set is just a set containing one element. Examples:

{1512}
{Earth}
Etc.

Cyracuz wrote:

If the set only contains one object it is not a set, its just an object.

A new mathematics! So now to you a set containing just one element is not a set? Why don't you do a little search on the web, or read again your old set theory schoolbooks for us to be able to proceed?

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right.

-wiki on Set(mathematical)

A ons-element set, by definition, can only contain one distinct object, hence it is not a collection of distinct objects, hence it does not fit the definition of a set.

This is how it seems to me after doing a little web searching. I linked the wiki article in the post you responded to. You must be blind as well as moronic.

Understand, I do not doubt that you are intelligent. You are also very stupid, unfortunately, in that you seem to think that making **** up is preferable to learning.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
A set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right.
-wiki on Set(mathematical)

A ons-element set, by definition, can only contain one distinct object, hence it is not a collection of distinct objects, hence it does not fit the definition of a set.

So that's indeed how you concluded such an absurdity: since the sentence talks about a distinct object, you concluded that it must be distinct from something else, hence there must be another element in the set, or it is not a set. Again, the "distinct" in that sentence aims at sets with repeated elements, which are not sets. A set cannot have the same element repeated many times, that's what the sentence is trying to say (in your case, without success). A set with repeated elements becomes a combination, or an arrangement, etc. A set is a collection of distinct elements, that is, you cannot have the same element more than once.

Cyracuz wrote:

This is how it seems to me after doing a little web searching.

If you have to do an Internet search to learn about set theory, then please do a little more search, since what you have learned so far is dead wrong.

Cyracuz wrote:

I linked the wiki article in the post you responded to. You must be blind as well as moronic.

Well, you may know nothing about set theory, but at least you know how to insult people...

Cyracuz wrote:

Understand, I do not doubt that you are intelligent.

But I'm starting to doubt you are...

Cyracuz wrote:

You are also very stupid, unfortunately, in that you seem to think that making **** up is preferable to learning.

More insults...

Set theory 1.0.1: you can have a set without elements (the empty set, with cardinality = zero), with one element (cardinality = 1), with two elements (cardinality = 2), etc. You cannot have a set with the same element repeated many times, which is what it means to say a set must have "distinct" elements. Please do a decent search, as well as a decent job interpreting what you read.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Fair enuff.
Whats yer point?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Fair enuff.
Whats yer point?

My point was made many posts ago, and still waits for an answer.

1 Reply

@guigus,

<sigh>

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

<sigh>

You want me to repeat it? OK, here it goes:

guigus wrote:

You cannot multiply a number by a symbol and get a number. And since you can multiply one by zero (and get zero), zero is a number: if it were just a symbol, then you wouldn't be able to multiply any number by it.

Regarding sets, zero is both the cardinality of the empty set and a possible element of a one-element set. I am talking here about the number zero, not about its symbol: of course you can have a set containing any symbol for zero, but this is not the set I am talking about, neither could such a symbol be the cardinality of the empty set, although the number it represents can. So:

1. The cardinality of the empty set is the number zero, which is then identical to nothing, or to the (nonexistent) elements of that set, so zero (elements) is identical to nothing (no element).

2. The set containing only the number zero (and not its symbol) does not have nothing as its content, so nothing is different from zero.

Again, zero is both different from and identical to nothing.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Your trail of thought is too ambiguous for my taste.
I have no further objections, mostly because those I already raised aren't being heard.

Googling "nothing" gives a better idea of what the concept is about than reading your descriptions, which only serve to introduce alot of confusion.

But one point I have to concede. I am far dumber than you for keeping this up for as long as I have.

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know